And Gavin, with long-running threads like this it's inevitable that repeated points are going to be a feature of taking part in the debate. This one's been running for about 15 months now, and on a fairly regular basis, mostly because someone hasn't bothered to start at the beginning and read through all that's been said.

The situation is complicated by the regular running of the 'Fuel for the 21st Century?' thread...

http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/forum114/comments.php?DiscussionID=6738&page=29#Item_9

...which was dropped in as an early Christmas present to us from Tony and is of similar length to this one and covers much of the same ground - in fact, in places, exactly the same ground.

What you've been asking JSH to provide has already been covered in extensive detail when Renewablejohn challenged him on precisely those grounds and he answered in forensic detail.

It's a bugger, but it's the nature of the beast.

Thank the lord!

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>
Joiner

I think you will find that it was answered with forensic garbage with JSH finally declaring his pro nuclear stance to the mast which would explain the anti biomass stance as nuclear and biomass do not make good energy partners.

</blockquote>

If you're going to summarise my views at least do so accurately, otherwise it just makes you look foolish.

Anyone can (given enough patience) go back and read posts by me on the topic, and they will find that your summary of my views is wide of the mark.

What you refer to as "forensic garbage" was a factual analysis of the capability of land to produce energy from growing biomass, an analysis that I note hasn't been refuted with any evidence at all from you, just rhetoric. It is a fact, indisputable and subject to any amount of verification that you wish to undertake, that plants of any type just aren't very efficient at converting sunlight to stored energy, so very large land areas are required to grow significant amounts of biomass energy.

I haven't a clue what my views on nuclear power have to do with the topic, it's unrelated and I presume just being thrown in to the pot by you to cast aspersions. Why can't we have a mix of energy sources for the future? Why can't nuclear be a part of that, as long as we can manage the safety and environmental issues?

BTW, for the record, I am not "anti biomass", if you take the time to check you will find that I have mentioned ways in which biomass could form a part of our future energy needs, I just don't happen to believe that burning trees etc in wood stoves is in any way a clever things to do.

JSW

Why should I worry about looking foolish it was not my figures that were out by a factor of 1000 hence the comment about garbage. Yes people can go back and read the early posts but the error is still there and people will be misinformed unless they plough through to the end of the discussion which I believe jumped over to the other thread so will be very difficult to find.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>JSW

Why should I worry about looking foolish it was not my figures that were out by a factor of 1000 hence the comment about garbage. Yes people can go back and read the early posts but the error is still there and people will be misinformed unless they plough through to the end of the discussion which I believe jumped over to the other thread so will be very difficult to find.</blockquote>

Neither were mine, at that point in the discussion you were making one point and I was making another!

To save people digging back through this thread, why don't you provide some definitive figures, backed by hard evidence rather than spin? After all, you're the one who seems to think that growing biomass is the answer.

Here's a starter for you to contradict, with some freshly crunched numbers that were the most optimistic (for biomass) that I could find:

The average total energy requirement per person in the UK is roughly 1.6 x 10^11 J per year.

The very highest yield biomass crop that can be grown in the UK is miscanthus, with a peak yield of around 225 x 10^9 J per hectare under ideal growing conditions (the average yield across the whole of the UK would be a fair bit lower).

If we were able to get the maximum yield from growing miscanthus all over the UK, then each person would require a land area dedicated to meeting their proportion of our total energy needs from biomass of 0.7 hectare.

The land area required to meet the total energy needs of the UK population (currently about 62 x 10^6) would be over 44 million hectares.

The total UK land area is around 24.3 million hectares.

Around 18.7 million hectares of land in the UK is agricultural.

If we used all of our agricultural land to grow the best yield biomass crop, and if the yield was consistently at the peak value all the time across the whole of the UK, then we could provide about 42% of our total energy needs from biomass, but we would have no food................

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: JSHarris</cite><blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>JSW

Why should I worry about looking foolish it was not my figures that were out by a factor of 1000 hence the comment about garbage. Yes people can go back and read the early posts but the error is still there and people will be misinformed unless they plough through to the end of the discussion which I believe jumped over to the other thread so will be very difficult to find.</blockquote>

Neither were mine, at that point in the discussion you were making one point and I was making another!

To save people digging back through this thread, why don't you provide some definitive figures, backed by hard evidence rather than spin? After all, you're the one who seems to think that growing biomass is the answer.

</blockquote>

JSH

I suggest people do dig back to page 24 then they will see that at the time I was not even part of the discussion it was your absurd figures which brought me into the discussion two posts later. At the time I was busy but made an effort to correct your errors and the position has not changed. I have never stated a biomass only solution but do believe that we can produce all our energy needs with just one nuclear reactor that is sufficiently far away not to be concerned with disposal of spent fuel. I have tried to have a reasoned debate on the German renewable way forward using biogas from renewable residues and CO2 conversion from excess wind and solar but seem to have difficulty in explaining the significance of the technology to you although it does seem very obvious to myself.

2011 DECC/Arup energy report detailed UK only capable of providing 10% of biomass needs required by current combustion proposals.
Land use futures- making best use of land in 21st Century
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:JdaJcTwfXsEJ:www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/land-use/luf_report/8614-bis-land_use_futures_exec_summ-web.pdf+priorities+for+land+usage+in+UK&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi4FxPkCYh5FESPyet_bsbm1ZJ96GMrbMa5inVnfkexjwmAo5kCL1pTT2-OPX9EnY8Ci9RXR4uj0mtGMpzZz2dliO6QHd_pZQiW3gKf5FbavWNCbuiB6OH-KWcxMdSzQbauVeCu&sig=AHIEtbRS0FuNDF6fLI4eHJMPkTXlIjLW7A
This report details providing 8-12% of 2050 energy needs would require 25% 0f our land area.
My concern is the health and environmental impact caused by investing in biomass energy. During the life of this thread each new piece of published research has added to impact concerns, The UK Gov published a report confirming 52TWh change to biomass energy would add £billions to health costs due to degradation of air quality. The data used to calculate impact grossly underestimated ELVs, PM 20g/Gj and NOX 50g/Gj. The Gov have recently increased biomass emissions limits to 30g and 150g respectively but unfortunately no data published on increased “social costs”.
The reality is biomass powerplants are displaying NOX pollution 290-1376 g/Gj, sadly approved by our regulatory system which allows manipulation of pollution concentration by increasing airflow through plant. This means UK airflow typically 4 times greater than German equivalent with concentration 4 times higher results in impact 16 times higher per tonne processed.
Current UK biomass energy policy will guarantee multiple deaths that could be avoided with application of due diligence and duty of care. Responsible regulation to minimise pollution, embracing BAT currently standard in mainland Europe, only providing subsidy to good quality CHP maximising efficiency and limiting use to local fuel availability because biomass has low energy density highlighting transport impact.
It is the health impact on children that causes greatest concern and with the knowledge that biomass combustion adds to GHG pollution then hazardous emissions reduction must be the priority. Anyone in doubt should check biomass emissions content and established links to both environmental and health damage.
A 300MW biomass plant is anticipated to create basic hazardous pollution equating to 1,572,000 additional diesel vehicles each travelling 20,000km/yr. The plants are limited to 300MW in order to avoid the more onerous emissions limits imposed on larger plants
Can the supporters of biomass combustion please explain why are we being forced to subsidise deliberate air quality degradation.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: renewablejohn</cite>JSH

There is no point in producing figures if you dont understand the technology so here is a helping hand.

http://www.solar-fuel.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Publikationen/Wind2SNG_ZSW_IWES_SolarFuel_FVEE.pdf</blockquote>

An interesting paper on energy storage, but you are still dodging the question.

You're in the business, so please tell us, with verifiable evidence, what proportion of the UKs total energy needs you think could be met from UK sourced biomass.

I've given some estimates I've done above; if we used every available bit of agricultural land in the UK to grow biomass, gave up growing food altogether and consistently got the highest possible yield from the biomass crop (which would mean around 77% of the whole of the UK land mass covered in a monoculture of miscanthus) we could get about 42% of our energy needs from it. Using about 77% of our total land area to grow a monoculture of a high yield biomass crop would be an environmental nightmare in terms of biodiversity.

If we want to eat as well as have energy then we would struggle to meet more than around 5% of our needs from biomass without importing it. Also, any dependence on importing sustainable energy fuels isn't truly sustainable, as I believe every nation should try to balance its own energy equation and live within its own means.

It's notable that wood prices are already increasing now - they've gone up around 15% around here in the last couple of months, presumably because people are switching to burning it instead of using gas, electricity, coal or oil and that's pushing demand up against a limited supply. Seems to me it's already not really sustainable as a fuel, even in this relatively rural part of the country.

Each week we make a 20 mile journey (to visit my father) notable the number of mature tress being felled this season, live in wooded area and locally the weekend dominated by the sound of chainsaws. The village air is full of woodburner emissions.

Posted By: JoinerTo be polite you call it "wood smoke".

Wood Smoke, is there anything more natural

Are you referring to Table 1 about land areas and their usage?
Or Table 5?

Joiner- comment noted Dave but have found referring to smoke causes problems on definition. Wood combustion also produces considerable water vapour in emissions, this is known to form a health hazard e.g.at public meeting asked question of biomass plant operator “could I drink the water?” answer yes but it would kill you. I plead guilty to bias Dave, any process that deliberately degrades air quality for the next generation causes me great angst. Having spent the past 10 yrs studying combustion emissions I despair at policies adopted by current administration. I feel DECC should be classified as Department for Euthanasia and crap combustion, concerns raised re biomass health impact brought response that UK priority must be compliance with renewable commitment.
Steamy-I would suggest natural things can also present a danger to both environment and health especially “emissions” from all current combustion processes.Accepted burning is a natural process but at least we can try and limit impact.
It is the consequences reality that cause greatest concern, I note rapid increase in roadside sale of wood in this area but no signs of planting. What is the future for trees? What is the future for air quality?

DEFRA detail UK agricultural area at some 18-19 million ha , the question becomes can we afford to transfer from food production to dedicated biomass?
I note report in Yorkshire Post detailing financial advantages to farmers in transfer out of wheat production Surely we need serious joined up thinking applied to future land use in order to protect the needs of all in the UK and certainly not just knee jerk decisions to line the pockets of a few. Commitment to feeding a 25yr biomass plant operation removes any flexibility in land use, biomass extracts large quantities of water from the ground with green wood known to have 50% plus water content. We surely have a duty to evaluate all consequences of these decisions.
Thanks Dave I must try harder.

Have had a quick look at Table 2, not sure how to extract the amount of dung from the area. I am also not sure if that area is just the 'living' area or includes crops grown for animal feed. I suspect the former. Either way is will be proportional to the solar input with upper and lower bounds set by the temperature, rainfall, fertilisers, farming methods etc.

Supply and Demand, Division of Labour, you just can't better it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15756074
Local biomass plant proposal reported sold for £170 million, 36MW, 240,000 t straw/woodburning/yr.
£4.7 m/MW, straw current price £60/t at farm gate, woodchip cost £100, operational costs reported high due to short life of heat exchangers caused by corrosive gases in straw combustion.
Where is the profit margin?